A Poll on the Black Vise/Mind Twist Deal
Daniel Walls
Hello, I will be taking a poll to see what people think about
the recent banning of Mind Twist and restriction of Black Vise.
Please state any extra comments following the answers to these
questions. Results will be posted after enough votes have been
cast.
1.) Should Black Vise have been Restricted? (Yes/No)
2.) Should Mind Twist have been Banned? (Yes/No)
3.) Do you think Banning and Restricting Cards is a good
way of decreasing the power of strong cards? (Yes/No)
Thanks, Daniel
RXK...@PRODIGY.COM
P.S.
My Votes:
1.) YES, ONLY IN TYPE II
2.) NO
3.) NO
Barrett W. Nuzum
:
: Hello, I will be taking a poll to see what people think about
: the recent banning of Mind Twist and restriction of Black Vise.
: Please state any extra comments following the answers to these
: questions. Results will be posted after enough votes have been
: cast.
: 1.) Should Black Vise have been Restricted? (Yes/No)
Yes. It was degenerate in Type II play. I've -never- lost in a Type II
game to a deck that didn't contain the Vise.
: 2.) Should Mind Twist have been Banned? (Yes/No)
Personally I don't think it was degenerate in Type II, however,
with the Alternative of Mind Warp, it becomes a rather unbalanced card.
Mind Warp is a much more "fair" card by virtue of those cards which have
been removed from the basic set (Sinkhole replaced with Icequake, etc).
I even have and use a Mind Twist frequently, but I'm in no way upset
that it has been banned. I play mostly Type 1.5 anyways, which already
had it banned.
: 3.) Do you think Banning and Restricting Cards is a good
: way of decreasing the power of strong cards? (Yes/No)
I think that by DC rules, if they made =JUST 1= card with the same
name but a different casting cost, that card's wording/cost would
affect all the previously published cards. The rules state that
"The most current wording of the card is the authoritative one."
I think that Black Vise could have been made a balanced card by
raising it's casting cost to 4, and that Mind Twist should remain
on the restricted list.
Therefore, No.
But as long as I see 20 posts a day of people whining about what
the DC does rather than just attend non-sanctioned tournaments,
I'll support WOTC/DC's decision.
--
Barrett W. Nuzum | personal - http://www.mv.com/users/hogarth
hog...@mv.mv.com | marillion - http://www.mv.com/users/hogarth/Marillion
MV Communications, Inc. | magic: tg - http://www.mv.com/users/hogarth/mtg
Jay Elmore
Donais Jeff <don...@server.uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>> 2.) Should Mind Twist have been Banned? (Yes/No)
>No, they should have let it been phased out with the next expansion for
>Type II and kept it in for Type I where there are much more powerful cards.
Well, since Mind Twist is _not_ an expansion card -- it's in the basic
set, remember? -- it can't be "phased out" with the next expansion
addition. Also, since WotC has no plans at this point to revise the basic
set in 1996, we're stuck with Mind Twists in Type II for at least another
year. Unless you do what the DC did, and ban it.
>> 3.) Do you think Banning and Restricting Cards is a good
>> way of decreasing the power of strong cards? (Yes/No)
>In general, I think it's a bad idea, type II can be controlled by phasin
>out of cards in the next rotation,
But rotations of the basic sets only happen at least every 15-18 months or
so, it seems. If they want to remove Mind Twist and Channel from 5th
Edition, that's fine. But until then, they are legal for play in Type II
tournaments -- again, unless you do what the DC did and ban the cards.
>and type I doesn't really need to be controlled.
If that means that you are of the opinion that Type I tournaments are
broken and need to be done away with, then I agree. :)
>I also agreed with
>Channel, because it was just plain stupid to be able to win a duel as
>soon as you had more life than your opponent (basically anyway).
Well, there are still cards where that is the case. Hurricane and
Earthquake, for example. I've built green decks that whittle my opponent
down with green weenies until I can cast a big enough Hurricane to kill my
opponent. You can do the same for red flyers and Earthquake. Does this
mean that Earthquake and Hurricane are in danger of becoming banned?
Jay (=
--
--
"This isn't one of those revamps where Everything You Knew Before Was Wrong.
This is one of those revamps where Everything You Knew Before isn't quite so
interesting as What's Happening Now." --Warren Ellis, on THOR
John Vowell
>
> Hello, I will be taking a poll to see what people think about
> the recent banning of Mind Twist and restriction of Black Vise.
> Please state any extra comments following the answers to these
> questions. Results will be posted after enough votes have been
> cast.
> 1.) Should Black Vise have been Restricted? (Yes/No)
>
Sure......the card never really bothered me one way or the
other
>
2.) Should Mind Twist have been Banned? (Yes/No)
no, simply because it is in 4th edition, as stated earlier,
they should have phased it out with the next rotation.
> 3.) Do you think Banning and Restricting Cards is a good
> way of decreasing the power of strong cards? (Yes/No)
Hell no.
Slayre
N2O O2
2. Yes
3. Sort of. Not so much decreasing the power of strong cards, but
decreasing the power of unfair cards. Mind Twist was unfair and too
strong, because it one blow you can rid your opponent of his hand, a very
powerful move that can easily decide a game. Black Vise was just stupid.
As my friend put it, Black Vise is a "Chimpanzee" card. By this, he means
that a chimpanzee has the intelligence to inflict damage using a Vise.
I'll tap one, play a vise. You take 3. He he he.
WotC, thank you for these two additions.
-Evan
-----------------------------------------------------------
On October 21st
The biggest battle of the fall
Ohio handed Akron the title
Yikkiest team of all.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Benveniste
> 1.) Should Black Vise have been Restricted? (Yes/No)
Only in type II. In type I, Black Vise is no more powerful today
than a year ago. It's pretty clear, however, that the DC is making
its choices based on type II and applying them to type I without
further consideration.
> 2.) Should Mind Twist have been Banned? (Yes/No)
No. If Mind Twist was that unbalanced, they should have removed
it from 4th edition. I'm opposed to banning non-ante cards while
they are in print. (P.S. Send a SASE for a free Channel!)
> 3.) Do you think Banning and Restricting Cards is a good
> way of decreasing the power of strong cards? (Yes/No)
Not the way it's being done now. The best way to handle out-
of-balance cards is not to release them. Once released, the
best way to handle them is not to reprint them and let them
pass into type I. The current use of black vise and mind
twist shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone.
Michael Benveniste
do...@netcom.com
: the recent banning of Mind Twist and restriction of Black Vise.
: Please state any extra comments following the answers to these
: questions. Results will be posted after enough votes have been
: cast.
: 1.) Should Black Vise have been Restricted? (Yes/No)
Type I: NO
Type II: I don't care.
: 2.) Should Mind Twist have been Banned? (Yes/No)
YES
: 3.) Do you think Banning and Restricting Cards is a good
: way of decreasing the power of strong cards? (Yes/No)
YES. But only if they really get to be a problem. I wish the DC would
be a bit more careful about what they're trying to do, maybe even post
their set of guidelines if such a formal document exists, just so we can
have intelligent discussion out here as well.
--
Check out my Magic Tournament Calendar at
http://www.music.uiowa.edu/~jezebel/dolor.html
RICHARD KENAN
: >I also agreed with
: >Channel, because it was just plain stupid to be able to win a duel as
: >soon as you had more life than your opponent (basically anyway).
: Well, there are still cards where that is the case. Hurricane and
: Earthquake, for example. I've built green decks that whittle my opponent
: down with green weenies until I can cast a big enough Hurricane to kill my
: opponent. You can do the same for red flyers and Earthquake. Does this
: mean that Earthquake and Hurricane are in danger of becoming banned?
OK, turn two, you attack me with a Llanowar Elf, and Giant Growth it.
You now have more life than me. How will you kill me with Earthquake
or Hurricane? Next turn, a Channelball kills me, Earthquake and
Hurricane don't, unless you have a *VERY* strange combo going. They
let you kill me and live if you have more life than me, but you also
need more mana, and mana progression at that level is pretty slow.
With Channel in hand, if the caster has more life and (G)(G)(R) to
tap, he wins. Even in a fairly slow deck otherwise, this is a turn
three kill. Failure to block a Llanowar Elf on turn two shouldn't
mean losing the game due to two cards on turn three.
Just me.
--
Richard Kenan
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!eefacdk
Internet: eef...@prism.gatech.edu
Donais Jeff
> decreasing the power of unfair cards. Mind Twist was unfair and too
> strong, because it one blow you can rid your opponent of his hand, a very
> powerful move that can easily decide a game. Black Vise was just stupid.
> As my friend put it, Black Vise is a "Chimpanzee" card. By this, he means
> that a chimpanzee has the intelligence to inflict damage using a Vise.
> I'll tap one, play a vise. You take 3. He he he.
>
> WotC, thank you for these two additions.
>
> -Evan
I'll tap one, bolt you. You take 3. He he he.
Turn 2: Detonate your Vice. He he he.
Turn 3: Chain/Incinerate/Bolt/Grenade/Ball you for blah. blah. blah. blah.
Cards are supposed to do damage, otherwise we'ed all just cast Freyalise
Winds and sit there.
Jeff
--------
Gamemaster: But why did you kill the kobold women and children?
Player: Because they aren't worth any experience points to us alive.
--------
Donais Jeff
Ritual, Giant Growth, and Disenchant are good cards, but is not so
drastically overbalanced that it needs to be restricted.
> 2.) Should Mind Twist have been Banned? (Yes/No)
No, they should have let it been phased out with the next expansion for
Type II and kept it in for Type I where there are much more powerful cards.
>
> 3.) Do you think Banning and Restricting Cards is a good
> way of decreasing the power of strong cards? (Yes/No)
In general, I think it's a bad idea, type II can be controlled by phasin
out of cards in the next rotation, and type I doesn't really need to be
controlled. There can be very limited exceptions, I agree with the Chaos
Orb/Falling Star rulings because those cards really duel the available
table space more than they duel the opponent. I also agreed with
Channel, because it was just plain stupid to be able to win a duel as
soon as you had more life than your opponent (basically anyway).
Take Care,
Paul Michael Novosad
Yes. First turn Vises too often make games cheesy and boring.
: 2.) Should Mind Twist have been Banned? (Yes/No)
Well... no. It makes the game alot more difficult for the
opponent, but it doesn't ruin it.
: 3.) Do you think Banning and Restricting Cards is a good
: way of decreasing the power of strong cards? (Yes/No)
In some cases yes, in some no. Cards that can win a game 75% of
the time they are used (ie. Channel) should be banned, but its
hardly necessary for cards with non-directly destructive
effects. Channels in a direct damage deck can almost guarantee
victory, but Mind Twists require a lot of other support, and are
hardly a guarantee.
Charles T. Schwope
> 1.) Should Black Vise have been Restricted? (Yes/No)
No. The main reason being the reasoning the Sparky has passed on to
us is morronic. "All decks are including 4 vises just for the 1st
turn vise." 1st off this is a false statement, secondly if a player
wants to include a card that is _useless_ after about the 4th turn,
feel free.
> 2.) Should Mind Twist have been Banned? (Yes/No)
No, but I could have seen it in Type II under the reasoning of "WotC
was stupid to reprint it, and we need to ban it before its pulled from
the card set." In Type I I see it as just another spoiler, but its a
spoiler I have access to.
> 3.) Do you think Banning and Restricting Cards is a good
> way of decreasing the power of strong cards? (Yes/No)
No. Banning a card does not limit its power, it just removes it from
the real play set. Restricting it doesn't really limit its power,
just changes the chance of getting it.
-CT
--
Charles T. Schwope | Every man is a spark in the darkness. By the
aka CT | time he is noticed, he is gone forever, a
sch...@infrared.csc.ti.com | retinal afterimage that fades, and is obscured
c-sc...@ti.com | by newer, brighter lights.
vva...@unicorn.it.wsu.edu
> the recent banning of Mind Twist and restriction of Black Vise.
> Please state any extra comments following the answers to these
> questions. Results will be posted after enough votes have been
> cast.
>
Yes, Black Vise is an overpowered card that overly encoureged fast decks
and penalized slower decks thus reducing the average number of deck's in
a tournement, it also added too much luck in the form of a first turn
vise etc...
> 2.) Should Mind Twist have been Banned? (Yes/No)
Probably, it was a spoiler found in nearly every black deck, much as
demonic tutor used to be
> 3.) Do you think Banning and Restricting Cards is a good
> way of decreasing the power of strong cards? (Yes/No)
I beleive that making cards that counteract a card is better than banning
them for example I beleive Blood Moon and Primal order are a better
solution to the dual land problem than banning or restricting dual lands
( though those two cards due overly hurt painlands and slowlands )
for example:
Torturer's Justice
Color: Blue
Cost: 0
Take control of any black vice in play ( and maybe rack too )
draw a card during the next upkeep
Curse of the Raveler
Color: Black
Cost: 0
Change the target of any mind twist directed at you too an opponent
draw a card during your next upkeep
( This one isn't really necessary all WoTC needs to due is repring
psychic purge )
Similar cards could be added for other spoilers such as Moxes, Timewalk (
lose a turn instead of gain one ) Black Lotus, Library of Alexandria,
Ancestral Recall ( Discard 3 instead of draw ), Regrowth, Demonic Tutor,
and other's
These cards would add an element of risk to using spoilers, instead of
removing them from the playing field.
Cards like these could be added to a new expansion as commons...
-Mossad
"All things considered insanity may be the only reasonable alternative"
"Hail Eris"
Donais Jeff
> >Channel, because it was just plain stupid to be able to win a duel as
> >soon as you had more life than your opponent (basically anyway).
>
> Earthquake, for example. I've built green decks that whittle my opponent
> down with green weenies until I can cast a big enough Hurricane to kill my
> opponent. You can do the same for red flyers and Earthquake. Does this
> mean that Earthquake and Hurricane are in danger of becoming banned?
>
>
Though Earthquake and Hurricane tiptoe on the border of channel - cheese,
at least you are required to tap the mana for these spells, and cannot
use your life for mana, which means there will be no first turn Hurricane
kills - unlike a Channel-Ball which is a defintely possible first turn
kill in type 1, or second turn kill in type 2 w/Lumberjack. Fireball is
still far cheesier than Hurricane and Earthquake will ever be, but cheese
is a part of magic, and I have no qualms about someone Fireballing me, as
long as they have no qualms about me Deflecting it, or Reverse Damaging
the damage.
Charles T. Schwope
>c-sc...@ti.com (Charles T. Schwope) wrote:
>> No. The main reason being the reasoning the Sparky has passed on to
>> us is morronic. "All decks are including 4 vises just for the 1st
>> turn vise." 1st off this is a false statement, secondly if a player
>> wants to include a card that is _useless_ after about the 4th turn,
>> feel free.
>You're right, it *is* a false statement. Good thing I never said it.
>If you're not going to use the words I did, PLEASE don't treat it as a
>quotation. I never made the statement you include here. I believe that
>the exact quote is, "Black Vice is a card so generally effective that
>*many* [emphasis added] tournament players were willing to include it
>in their decks regardless of what the decks theme or purpose was. The
>damage it could potentially inflict if played on the first turn was too
>attractive to ignore. In some cases players would keep their Vices
>sideboarded out if they knew they weren't going first."
My apologies on that. I over exagerated. The direct quote is exactly
what you put in.
My quotations in my 1st post weren't ment to be a direct quote... only
the impression that I got from your message.
And I still think the statement is false. What qualifies as "many"?
20%, 50%, 80%? I have only seen one player doing that, and I beat him
(at least in part) because of it. When he pulled the 10th turn (or
so) black vise, and played it, I just about cried I was laughing so
hard. (I also believe he pulled another the next turn.) Through the
1st game I was wondering why the vises were in the deck... b/c there
was no support. And the reason is, he was a poor deck designer. If
he had pulled a critter instead of the vise... I might have lost, but
he didn't.
>Your assertions that I made false statements are completely off-base,
>a construct of your own inaccurate reading of my message. While I
>don't expect everyone to agree that these are good reasons, I don't
>think anyone can call it a 'false statement.'
Well, I think it is. Or if it isn't then there are a lot of poor
deckdesigners out there. Since the Twist seems to have been banned
b/c people percieved as the "best" players complained loudly about it,
I wonder is any of the "best" players use the vise in the manner
described above.
>True: "Black Vice is a card so generally effective that many tournament
>players were willing to include it in their decks regardless of what the
>decks theme or purpose was. The damage it could potentially inflict if
>played on the first turn was too attractive to ignore." Many posters here
>have admitted to this, and I've done it myself.
Ok... then I've missed the posts saying this. Or rather, I've missed
seeing the top tier decks do this. If people really found the vise
that good, they would take it to the next step and build decks around
it. That way... a late game vise wouldn't be a bad draw. Having a
card in you deck that will be just about worthless in 50% of your
games just doesn't make any sense.
>True: "In some cases players would keep their Vices sideboarded out if
>they knew they weren't going first." Our R&D staffers have witnessed
>this in tournaments.
Then the DC should do something about not allowing sideboarding b4 the
1st game. If someone wants to have the vises in their main deck, I
have no problem with it, b/c the card will be at best useful in 50% of
our games. If he wasted 4 slots in his SB to put them in when he
knows he's going 1st, I have no problem with it. I do have a problem
with people sideboarding b4 the 1st game, b/c it opens up a lot of
options for scouting.
>I have no problem with disagreement, but I do have one with
>misrepresentation.
And again, I'm sorry I f*&ked up on that, but I still feel even that
the decision was based a false statement, or on decks that just don't
matter in the long run (aka non-1st tier decks).
Brent Burkholder
>> 3.) Do you think Banning and Restricting Cards is a good
>> way of decreasing the power of strong cards? (Yes/No)
>
>I beleive that making cards that counteract a card is better than banning
>them for example I beleive Blood Moon and Primal order are a better
>solution to the dual land problem than banning or restricting dual lands
>( though those two cards due overly hurt painlands and slowlands )
>
Ok, but alot of people use alot of dual lands... it's a card that is almost
certainly of use.
>for example:
>Torturer's Justice
>Color: Blue
>Cost: 0
>Take control of any black vice in play ( and maybe rack too )
>draw a card during the next upkeep
>
>Curse of the Raveler
>Color: Black
>Cost: 0
>Change the target of any mind twist directed at you too an opponent
>draw a card during your next upkeep
>( This one isn't really necessary all WoTC needs to due is repring
>psychic purge )
>
These cards are WAY too narrow for anyone to seriously consider using
in even their sideboard. It takes up slots better used for something
constructive. The most effective hoser cards are general-purpose... either
their hosing can be used most of the time or they have an alternate purpose.
Now, if torturer's justice was like this:
Artifact Bane 2
--------------------
All damage you recieve
from artifact sources
is halved, rounding down.
then you'd see it show up in decks because if a deck didn't include
vices, then it may include racks, or possibly artifact creatures.
--
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------
Brent Burkholder < < "To coerce God is to coerce reality and answer
br...@beast.amd.com > > your own prayers." - Diamond Mask, Julian May
----------------------- -------------------------------------------------
Sparky!!
> > 1.) Should Black Vise have been Restricted? (Yes/No)
> No. The main reason being the reasoning the Sparky has passed on to
> us is morronic. "All decks are including 4 vises just for the 1st
> turn vise." 1st off this is a false statement, secondly if a player
> wants to include a card that is _useless_ after about the 4th turn,
> feel free.
You're right, it *is* a false statement. Good thing I never said it.
If you're not going to use the words I did, PLEASE don't treat it as a
quotation. I never made the statement you include here. I believe that
the exact quote is, "Black Vice is a card so generally effective that
*many* [emphasis added] tournament players were willing to include it
in their decks regardless of what the decks theme or purpose was. The
damage it could potentially inflict if played on the first turn was too
attractive to ignore. In some cases players would keep their Vices
sideboarded out if they knew they weren't going first."
Your assertions that I made false statements are completely off-base,
a construct of your own inaccurate reading of my message. While I
don't expect everyone to agree that these are good reasons, I don't
think anyone can call it a 'false statement.'
True: "Black Vice is a card so generally effective that many tournament
players were willing to include it in their decks regardless of what the
decks theme or purpose was. The damage it could potentially inflict if
played on the first turn was too attractive to ignore." Many posters here
have admitted to this, and I've done it myself.
True: "In some cases players would keep their Vices sideboarded out if
they knew they weren't going first." Our R&D staffers have witnessed
this in tournaments.
I have no problem with disagreement, but I do have one with
misrepresentation.
--
Marc Schmalz, aka Sparky!!
Wizards of the Coast Customer Service Team
spa...@castle.wizards.com
morrie....@ssc.msu.edu
<big snip>
>True: "Black Vice is a card so generally effective that many tournament
>players were willing to include it in their decks regardless of what the
>decks theme or purpose was. The damage it could potentially inflict if
>played on the first turn was too attractive to ignore." Many posters here
>have admitted to this, and I've done it myself.
Sparky!!, I'm just going to have to take your word for it. I've played in
every tournament I could find in my area, and the only Vise decks I've seen
have been ones constructed to use the Vise at any point in the game, with
support cards. I have yet to run across an effective deck that (a) didn't
use support cards or (b) wasn't a straight burn deck that would get hosed
by the first white deck it faced--and I've only seen these posted on the
'Net, never actually played.
I will take your word for this, since my experience is limited to this
geographical area, but I had to voice the facts as I see them from way up
north. Well, Michigan. Whatever.:-)
>True: "In some cases players would keep their Vices sideboarded out if
>they knew they weren't going first." Our R&D staffers have witnessed
>this in tournaments.
Wasn't the change in the rules (no pre-game-one sideboarding) designed to
take care of problems like this? I think that something which is now
illegal in tournaments is kind of a weak reason for the restriction. It's
the cheating that's problematic, not the card itself, at least in this
case. It's like keeping 4 BEB's sideboarded out if you know prior to game
one that your opponent isn't playing red...
Morrie
morrie....@ssc.msu.edu
This message not intended to flame, insult, or defame anyone other than
myself...
Barbara Haddad
WOTC instead to get the quality control back on their cards. (Homelands
are the worst yet -- flimsy things).
------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Haddad - mel...@shakala.com
Shakala BBS (ClanZen Radio Network) Sunnyvale, CA +1-408-734-2289
Brian T. Tickler
>>True: "In some cases players would keep their Vices sideboarded out if
>>they knew they weren't going first." Our R&D staffers have witnessed
>>this in tournaments.
>
>Wasn't the change in the rules (no pre-game-one sideboarding) designed to
>take care of problems like this? I think that something which is now
>illegal in tournaments is kind of a weak reason for the restriction. It's
>the cheating that's problematic, not the card itself, at least in this
>case. It's like keeping 4 BEB's sideboarded out if you know prior to game
>one that your opponent isn't playing red...
I believe what Sparky was getting at is that players were sideboarding in
and out their 4 Vises in games 2 & 3 based on whether they were going to
go first or not. Examples:
Lost game 1, going first game 2 = Vises stay in or are sideboarded in
Won game 1, opponent goes first game 2 = Vises sideboarded out
--
Brian T. Tickler E-Mail: tic...@netcom.com
Daniel C Robbins
I dont post here much, but when I saw that Wizards had restricted
black vise I had to say something. That SUCKS. It seems to me that WOC
doesnt want anyone to be able to play a speed deck in tournaments. First they
make the Zuran Orb, where everybody now has around 60 life in their deck, and now
this. I understand Ice Age gave quick decks the tinder wall, which is a great
card, but it is not as powerful as the orb.
Back to the vise. With Ivory tower now being equal in number to the
vise, nobody will worry about being able to get under 5 cards quickly. Every game
will take forever, you know, I counter your power sink of my spell blast, blah blah
blah, boring, boring, boring. With out the vises, a deck without
countering ability will not be able to compete in type 1 play. Restricting the
vise doesnt help magic players be more creative, in fact it destroys many deck
types. This is going to hurt the game. There should be some luck involved, it
keeps it interesting.
RIP
Stasis
Land Destruction
Winter Orb/Relic Barrier
My new type I deck will be pure blue w/ ivory tower and z orb and maybe a millstone
or 2. Just try to kill me. Snooze.
Just my opinion,
DCR
Jeff Sternal
Daniel C Robbins <rob...@cse.psu.edu> wrote:
>Hello I dont post here much, but when I saw that Wizards had restricted
>black vise I had to say something. That SUCKS. It seems to me that WOC
>doesnt want anyone to be able to play a speed deck in tournaments.
> RIP
> Stasis - add creatures
> Land Destruction - add creatures
> Winter Orb/Relic Barrier - add creatures
Anyway, *these* are speed decks?
In any case, Un-RIP. I'm sorry - I'm not a creature fanatic,
but these decks are not dead.
Jeff
Frederick Scott
>Sparky - I generally respect your opinion. Your posts are generally correct.
>I realize that the statements below are from the DC (at least I think that's
>what you said in the original post), but I have to question the accuracy of
>the statements.
>
>Sparky!! (spa...@castle.wizards.com) wrote:
>: True: "Black Vice is a card so generally effective that many tournament
>: players were willing to include it in their decks regardless of what the
>: decks theme or purpose was. The damage it could potentially inflict if
>: played on the first turn was too attractive to ignore." Many posters here
>: have admitted to this, and I've done it myself.
>
>FALSE. I do not know, nor have I see, a *single* successful Type I player
>include four vises in every deck. Type II may be a different story, but that
>is just more reason to split the banned/restricted lists.
Apparently the problem is that you don't read Sparky's statements very well.
Note that your statement does NOT contradict his. It could be true and his
statement could be true as well. He said "...many tournament players were
willing to include it in their decks regardless...". You're talking about
whether a so-called "successful" player, which is a subjective and/or
ancedotal description of a person, would be willing to do so. In short,
"the smart guys don't do it". Perhaps (actually, I personally agree), but
Sparky wasn't talking about that. The observations he was reporting clearly
were more concerned with raw numbers of players.
Fred
mark balabon
: c-sc...@ti.com (Charles T. Schwope) wrote:
: > Daniel Walls <RXK...@PRODIGY.COM> wrote:
: > > 1.) Should Black Vise have been Restricted? (Yes/No)
: > No. The main reason being the reasoning the Sparky has passed on to
: > us is morronic. "All decks are including 4 vises just for the 1st
: > turn vise." 1st off this is a false statement, secondly if a player
: > wants to include a card that is _useless_ after about the 4th turn,
: > feel free.
: You're right, it *is* a false statement. Good thing I never said it.
: If you're not going to use the words I did, PLEASE don't treat it as a
: quotation. I never made the statement you include here. I believe that
: the exact quote is, "Black Vice is a card so generally effective that
: *many* [emphasis added] tournament players were willing to include it
: in their decks regardless of what the decks theme or purpose was. The
: damage it could potentially inflict if played on the first turn was too
: attractive to ignore. In some cases players would keep their Vices
: sideboarded out if they knew they weren't going first."
: Your assertions that I made false statements are completely off-base,
: a construct of your own inaccurate reading of my message. While I
: don't expect everyone to agree that these are good reasons, I don't
: think anyone can call it a 'false statement.'
Sparky - I generally respect your opinion. Your posts are generally correct.
I realize that the statements below are from the DC (at least I think that's
what you said in the original post), but I have to question the accuracy of
the statements.
: True: "Black Vice is a card so generally effective that many tournament
: players were willing to include it in their decks regardless of what the
: decks theme or purpose was. The damage it could potentially inflict if
: played on the first turn was too attractive to ignore." Many posters here
: have admitted to this, and I've done it myself.
FALSE. I do not know, nor have I see, a *single* successful Type I player
include four vises in every deck. Type II may be a different story, but that
is just more reason to split the banned/restricted lists.
: True: "In some cases players would keep their Vices sideboarded out if
: they knew they weren't going first." Our R&D staffers have witnessed
: this in tournaments.
I question this. Did you actually ask the players why they were sideboarding
the vises out? My current deck does have vices, and they are on the
sideboard. The main reason the vises go in the deck is for those times when I
play against U/W counter decks - and even then, it has very little to do with
the damage. It has more to do with forcing them to play cards rather than
holding them.
Bally
: I have no problem with disagreement, but I do have one with
Sparky!!
> Then the DC should do something about not allowing sideboarding
> b4 the 1st game.
They do. You have to return your deck to its original composition before
each new opponent you face. So you go first on the second or third round
of the match and sideboard it in.
Sccerby
no
no
Brian T. Tickler
>: > b4 the 1st game.
>
>: They do. You have to return your deck to its original composition before
>: of the match and sideboard it in.
>
>
>I don't recall ever seeing that in print. Tom?
It is there, in paragraph 3 of the new Standard Floor Rules. I'm not
sure why they didn't make more of an announcement about this change,
which went in at the same time as the Zuran Orb restriction. Our local
store has been requiring all tourney players to write down their
sideboard contents prior to registration, and has been since Nov. 1,
1995.
A very good rule change, BTW.
J. H.
>I, myself agree with this. I have played M:TG with my friend once and he
>beat me flawless because of that combo!
That's some funny shit!
Even better is the Braingeyser your opponent for as many cards
as your lands can muster then play a Rack combo!
You cunning guy!
Vince
Die Specter!
uche...@usa.pipeline.com
William Thomas III Schipper
:bala...@bu.edu (mark balabon) wrote:
:>Actually, I read Sparky!!'s post more than once. It was fairly obvious from
:>some of the statements that he was talking about Type II - thus the point of
:>my post was restrict Vise in Type II, not Type I (where it is not a real
:>problem). And I realize that my statement did not contradict what was said
:>in *this* post, but unless I am mistaken, his earlier posts did infer that
:>he was talking about winning players. For the first time in my life, I
:>find that I have to agree with Dennis H - the DC made this decision based
:>not on balance but on a bad decision (including vises in every deck) made
:>by a majority of players.
: Why is this supposedly a bad thing? Let's take an admittedly absurd
: example: 256 players enter a tourney. 255 of them are playing decks
: with 4 Black Vise, 4 Strip Mine, 4 Urza's Bauble, and 48 Plains. The
: last player is playing a well-contructed tourney deck. What are the
: chances of the one player actually winning this tournament?
If he knew that the typical deck in the tournament would be like this, his
chances of winning would be excellent. Even if he didn't, they would
probably be far better than that of anyone else in the tournament. I'm not
sure if this is what you meant or not...you may think your question has
an obvious answer, but I'm not so sure. In that many rounds there is
a good chance the deck would have to beat stripmine/vice two games in
a row a couple of times. (Of course, if it were a Swiss the good deck would
almost certainly win)
Black Vice is annoying on the first turn and a very effective damage dealer
in the right deck. However, to use it well the whole deck has to be built
around it. I don't think it is really powerful enough to need restricting,
but now that it has you can bet that I will be playing more Control Magic
and other cards that are card efficient but can be too slow with vices.
Tom Schipper
Brian T. Tickler
>: Why is this supposedly a bad thing? Let's take an admittedly absurd
>: example: 256 players enter a tourney. 255 of them are playing decks
>: with 4 Black Vise, 4 Strip Mine, 4 Urza's Bauble, and 48 Plains. The
>: last player is playing a well-contructed tourney deck. What are the
>: chances of the one player actually winning this tournament?
>
>If he knew that the typical deck in the tournament would be like this, his
>chances of winning would be excellent. Even if he didn't, they would
>probably be far better than that of anyone else in the tournament. I'm not
>sure if this is what you meant or not...you may think your question has
>an obvious answer, but I'm not so sure. In that many rounds there is
>a good chance the deck would have to beat stripmine/vice two games in
>a row a couple of times. (Of course, if it were a Swiss the good deck would
>almost certainly win)
I was envisioning a single elimination tourney...my point is, the real
deck should have a 99.9% of winning any tourney where all the other
participants are playing such an absurd mix of cards, i.e. 4 Artifacts,
52 Land, and 4 Cantrips. Yet because of Black Vise, the deck would be
lucky to get through the entire tourney without meeting someone who drew
multiple Vises and Strip Mines two games in row...
>Black Vice is annoying on the first turn and a very effective damage dealer
>in the right deck. However, to use it well the whole deck has to be built
>around it. I don't think it is really powerful enough to need restricting,
>but now that it has you can bet that I will be playing more Control Magic
>and other cards that are card efficient but can be too slow with vices.
--
Brian T. Tickler
>Actually, I read Sparky!!'s post more than once. It was fairly obvious from
>some of the statements that he was talking about Type II - thus the point of
>my post was restrict Vise in Type II, not Type I (where it is not a real
>problem). And I realize that my statement did not contradict what was said in
>*this* post, but unless I am mistaken, his earlier posts did infer that he was
>talking about winning players. For the first time in my life, I find that I
>have to agree with Dennis H - the DC made this decision based not on balance
>but on a bad decision (including vises in every deck) made by a majority of
>players.
Why is this supposedly a bad thing? Let's take an admittedly absurd
example: 256 players enter a tourney. 255 of them are playing decks
with 4 Black Vise, 4 Strip Mine, 4 Urza's Bauble, and 48 Plains. The
last player is playing a well-contructed tourney deck. What are the
chances of the one player actually winning this tournament?
--
Craig Sivils
>example: 256 players enter a tourney. 255 of them are playing decks
>with 4 Black Vise, 4 Strip Mine, 4 Urza's Bauble, and 48 Plains. The
>last player is playing a well-contructed tourney deck. What are the
>chances of the one player actually winning this tournament?
If the decks were something like
4 Necropotence
4 Lands Edge
4 Demonic Consultation
4 Black Vices
4 Forgotten Lore
4 Dark Rituals
4 Tinder Walls
2 Ishan's shades
(maybe couple reb's or glooms or death grips depending on tourney
expectations)
4 Strips
Rest Cob/ice age poke lands, etc.
A strategy completely based upon the luck of the draw.
Craig
mark balabon
: bala...@bu.edu (mark balabon) writes:
: >Sparky - I generally respect your opinion. Your posts are generally correct.
: >I realize that the statements below are from the DC (at least I think that's
: >what you said in the original post), but I have to question the accuracy of
: >the statements.
: >
: >Sparky!! (spa...@castle.wizards.com) wrote:
: >: True: "Black Vice is a card so generally effective that many tournament
: >: players were willing to include it in their decks regardless of what the
: >: decks theme or purpose was. The damage it could potentially inflict if
: >: played on the first turn was too attractive to ignore." Many posters here
: >: have admitted to this, and I've done it myself.
: >
: >FALSE. I do not know, nor have I see, a *single* successful Type I player
: >include four vises in every deck. Type II may be a different story, but that
: >is just more reason to split the banned/restricted lists.
: Apparently the problem is that you don't read Sparky's statements very well.
: Note that your statement does NOT contradict his. It could be true and his
: statement could be true as well. He said "...many tournament players were
: willing to include it in their decks regardless...". You're talking about
: whether a so-called "successful" player, which is a subjective and/or
: ancedotal description of a person, would be willing to do so. In short,
: "the smart guys don't do it". Perhaps (actually, I personally agree), but
: Sparky wasn't talking about that. The observations he was reporting clearly
: were more concerned with raw numbers of players.
: Fred
Actually, I read Sparky!!'s post more than once. It was fairly obvious from
some of the statements that he was talking about Type II - thus the point of
my post was restrict Vise in Type II, not Type I (where it is not a real
problem). And I realize that my statement did not contradict what was said in
*this* post, but unless I am mistaken, his earlier posts did infer that he was
talking about winning players. For the first time in my life, I find that I
have to agree with Dennis H - the DC made this decision based not on balance
but on a bad decision (including vises in every deck) made by a majority of
players.
Bally
Landing
> Sparky!! (spa...@castle.wizards.com) wrote:
> : c-sc...@ti.com (Charles T. Schwope) wrote:
>
> : > Then the DC should do something about not allowing sideboarding
> : > b4 the 1st game.
>
> : They do. You have to return your deck to its original composition before
> : each new opponent you face. So you go first on the second or third round
> : of the match and sideboard it in.
>
>
> Woah there fella. This is a new one on me, and a lot of other players.
> I don't recall ever seeing that in print. Tom?
>
> : Wizards of the Coast Customer Service Team
> : spa...@castle.wizards.com
>
> do...@netcom.com
>
> Check out my Magic Tournament Calendar at
> http://www.music.uiowa.edu/~jezebel/dolor.html
>
>>>>
Since when are you not allowed to sideboard on the first game. Type II tournament rules at the Ledgewood Mall, NJ,
say, "If you put it in your deck live with it." Nothing in the rules where I come from says anything about
sideboarding.
Dennis F. Hefferman
|True: "Black Vice is a card so generally effective that many tournament
|players were willing to include it in their decks regardless of what the
|decks theme or purpose was. The damage it could potentially inflict if
|played on the first turn was too attractive to ignore." Many posters here
|have admitted to this, and I've done it myself.
No, false. Insert "perceived to be" before "so" in the first sentence
to make it true. It is not in fact so effective.
|True: "In some cases players would keep their Vices sideboarded out if
|they knew they weren't going first." Our R&D staffers have witnessed
|this in tournaments.
Ah, so what?
--
Dennis Francis Heffernan IRC: Macavity heff...@pegasus.montclair.edu
Montclair State University #include <disclaim.h> Computer Science/Philosophy
"You bitch about the present and blame it on the past/I'd like to find your
inner child and kick its little ass!" -- Don Henley/Glenn Fry, "Get Over It"
Dennis F. Hefferman
|talking about winning players. For the first time in my life, I find that I
|have to agree with Dennis H - the DC made this decision based not on balance
You'll get used to it.
Paul van Gool
>bala...@bu.edu (mark balabon) wrote:
>>For the first time in my life, I find that I
>>have to agree with Dennis H - the DC made this decision based not on balance
>>but on a bad decision (including vises in every deck) made by a majority of
>>players.
>Why is this supposedly a bad thing? Let's take an admittedly absurd
>example: 256 players enter a tourney. 255 of them are playing decks
>with 4 Black Vise, 4 Strip Mine, 4 Urza's Bauble, and 48 Plains. The
>last player is playing a well-contructed tourney deck. What are the
>chances of the one player actually winning this tournament?
Almost 100%
The only change he has to lose the tournament is to have 2 very bad
draws against the same opponent.
If it is a Swiss type tournament I think this will be exactly 100%
With 4 BV in a 60 card deck you have about 44% change of getting at
least 1 BV in your openinghand + first draw (8 cards). Any well
constructed deck handled by any decent player won't be impressed by
it.
I am not saying that a first time BV is a lot of fun to get played
against you. But just putting 4 BV in every deck will not help you.
IMHO BV's are only of real help in a deck specialised to use them
(like laand destruction, or decks that are based on killing on turn 3
or 4 in which a first turn BV will just help to accomplish this).
Peter M White
>bala...@bu.edu (mark balabon) writes:
>>Sparky!! (spa...@castle.wizards.com) wrote:
>>: True: "Black Vice is a card so generally effective that many tournament
>>: players were willing to include it in their decks regardless of what the
>>: decks theme or purpose was. The damage it could potentially inflict if
>>: played on the first turn was too attractive to ignore." Many posters here
>>: have admitted to this, and I've done it myself.
>>
>>FALSE. I do not know, nor have I see, a *single* successful Type I player
>>include four vises in every deck. Type II may be a different story, but that
>>is just more reason to split the banned/restricted lists.
>Apparently the problem is that you don't read Sparky's statements very well.
>Note that your statement does NOT contradict his. It could be true and his
>statement could be true as well. He said "...many tournament players were
>willing to include it in their decks regardless...". You're talking about
>whether a so-called "successful" player, which is a subjective and/or
>ancedotal description of a person, would be willing to do so. In short,
>"the smart guys don't do it". Perhaps (actually, I personally agree), but
>Sparky wasn't talking about that. The observations he was reporting clearly
>were more concerned with raw numbers of players.
Nor would this be the first time that the DC bowed to the vague perceptions
of the majority of players over the perceptions of experienced players
who have carefully considered the problem and possible solutions. Even
though I put it caustically, it is hardly a riduculous response on their
part; but it is certainly annoying when one believes a more considered,
moderate position loses out.
--Peter "who doesn't play in tournaments
because his good decks are in plastic sleeves"
p-w...@uiuc.edu
Cathy Nicoloff
: Nor would this be the first time that the DC bowed to the vague perceptions
: of the majority of players over the perceptions of experienced players
: who have carefully considered the problem and possible solutions. Even
Here's where I ask the tough question. Define "experienced player". I'd
say I was pretty experienced - I win just over half the games I play in
my local area, which amount to about 10 a week. I traveled outside of my
area to just across the state, and lost every game I played. It seems
every area has their own best players, who teach everyone else, and
everyone learns the game just a little differently.
The guys who compete in trounaments almost _always_ have the same mindset
- kill, kill quickly, and use the cheapest card for the effect you can find.
This has boiled the tournament scene into about 4-5 different deck themes
which are "tournament viable" - meaning that all the expansions they can
use offer them many powerful cards toward achieving that end.
Yet and still, each local area's tournament scene looks different! I can
do well at my local type II tournament with a simple black/green speed
deck, simply because everyone else is so enamoured with blue denial
decks, blue millstone decks, and blue stasis decks. Those who aren't
playing blue are playing land destroyers and hand destroyers - speed
trounces on them! But aside from that, the basic point remains clear -
each area has a different batch of "successful" players who have learned
basically a different game. Some people, like me, learn that speedand
brute force win you games. Some people learn that careful bluffs and
denial win games. Some people learn that card superiority or creature
superiority win games. For _anyone_ to come through and say that no
self-respecting tournament player would do <X> because _they_ have never
seen it done in their area... well, the point is moot.
The Black Vise has become a no-brainer somewhere. It's even better than
a lightning bolt - it's a bolt that keeps on giving for about three
rounds, maybe more. Not only that, you can use _any_ color to activate
it, not just red. That's what makes it easy to drop into any deck. I
dropped one into my black/red deck, because it pisses people off when I
get it in my first hand. What's better than a bolt? A Black Vise on
your first turn.
It's a debate that can keep going around and around...
-Cathy
MagicRZA
sideboard, then if Opp. suspects you of cheating...they check up on you.
-The RZA
"I'm the RZARECTOR, be my sacrifice, commit suicide and I
bring you back to life"-RZARECTOR"
Craig Sivils
Although the vice deck presented stinks, it isn't 100% by far. Since
there are 256 players (and there ain't going to be 256 rounds, more
like 5), There are decent odds are that there will be several with
perfect records. So if the player even looses ONE game, he's out. If
one player manages a cheese draw and gets say two strips and two
vices, its all over for the good deck. Say THANK YOU swiss!
Craig
Peter M White
>Peter M White (p-w...@meibm19.cen.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>: Nor would this be the first time that the DC bowed to the vague perceptions
>: of the majority of players over the perceptions of experienced players
>: who have carefully considered the problem and possible solutions. Even
>Here's where I ask the tough question. Define "experienced player". I'd
>say I was pretty experienced - I win just over half the games I play in
>my local area, which amount to about 10 a week. I traveled outside of my
>area to just across the state, and lost every game I played. It seems
>every area has their own best players, who teach everyone else, and
>everyone learns the game just a little differently.
I worded that poorly. I did not mean to imply that the "majority"
only included inexperienced players, as you might read my comments
to imply. But I do mean that the less thoughtful players disproportionately
are among the big crowd. My perspective is different than most; I
learned against 40 card decks with 5-6 BVs that if a _single_ first
round BV was causing me serious problems, I must be doing something wrong.
--Peter
p-w...@uiuc.edu
Stimpy1982
is a good form of banning. Therefor my response to the poll is...
Yes.
No.
Sort of.
Stimpy
Brian T. Tickler
>pvg...@iaehv.nl (Paul van Gool) wrote:
>
>>"Brian T. Tickler" <tic...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>>bala...@bu.edu (mark balabon) wrote:
>>>>For the first time in my life, I find that I
>>>>have to agree with Dennis H - the DC made this decision based not on balance
>>>>but on a bad decision (including vises in every deck) made by a majority of
>>>>players.
>
>>>Why is this supposedly a bad thing? Let's take an admittedly absurd
>>>example: 256 players enter a tourney. 255 of them are playing decks
>>>with 4 Black Vise, 4 Strip Mine, 4 Urza's Bauble, and 48 Plains. The
>>>last player is playing a well-contructed tourney deck. What are the
>>>chances of the one player actually winning this tournament?
>
>>Almost 100%
>>The only change he has to lose the tournament is to have 2 very bad
>>draws against the same opponent.
Key word here: almost. It should 100%, given the mix of the deck I
posted, i.e. 48 basic land, 4 artifacts, 4 special land, and 4 cantrips.
Only the fact that those 4 artifacts happen to be Vises gives this mix
any chance at all. The Strip Mines and Urza's Buables just improve the
chances of dealing Vise damage.
>>If it is a Swiss type tournament I think this will be exactly 100%
>>With 4 BV in a 60 card deck you have about 44% change of getting at
>>least 1 BV in your openinghand + first draw (8 cards). Any well
>>constructed deck handled by any decent player won't be impressed by
>>it.
>>I am not saying that a first time BV is a lot of fun to get played
>>against you. But just putting 4 BV in every deck will not help you.
>>IMHO BV's are only of real help in a deck specialised to use them
>>(like laand destruction, or decks that are based on killing on turn 3
>>or 4 in which a first turn BV will just help to accomplish this).
>Although the vice deck presented stinks, it isn't 100% by far. Since
>there are 256 players (and there ain't going to be 256 rounds, more
>like 5), There are decent odds are that there will be several with
>perfect records. So if the player even looses ONE game, he's out. If
>one player manages a cheese draw and gets say two strips and two
>vices, its all over for the good deck. Say THANK YOU swiss!
Thanks Craig, that was my point: the deck posted stinks. It has no
right to win a single tourney game. Yet it can, because of the Vise.
William Thomas III Schipper
: >>>with 4 Black Vise, 4 Strip Mine, 4 Urza's Bauble, and 48 Plains. The
: >>>last player is playing a well-contructed tourney deck. What are the
: >>>chances of the one player actually winning this tournament?
: >
: >>Almost 100%
: >>The only change he has to lose the tournament is to have 2 very bad
: >>draws against the same opponent.
: Key word here: almost. It should 100%, given the mix of the deck I
: posted, i.e. 48 basic land, 4 artifacts, 4 special land, and 4 cantrips.
: Only the fact that those 4 artifacts happen to be Vises gives this mix
: any chance at all. The Strip Mines and Urza's Buables just improve the
: chances of dealing Vise damage.
It will NEVER be quite 100%, but I think it would be close enough that
it shouldn't bother anyone. The probability wouldn't be 100% against
decks that were 52 Swamp, 4 DR, 4 Hypno (or Vampire) either...nor would
it be against 30 Mountains, 30 Goblins (I'm not sure if that's tournament
legal, but has to be close).
A well constructed deck that knew most people in the area liked vices
would VERY rarely die to them.
: >>I am not saying that a first time BV is a lot of fun to get played
: >>against you. But just putting 4 BV in every deck will not help you.
: >>IMHO BV's are only of real help in a deck specialised to use them
: >>(like laand destruction, or decks that are based on killing on turn 3
: >>or 4 in which a first turn BV will just help to accomplish this).
: >Although the vice deck presented stinks, it isn't 100% by far. Since
: >there are 256 players (and there ain't going to be 256 rounds, more
: >like 5), There are decent odds are that there will be several with
: >perfect records. So if the player even looses ONE game, he's out. If
: >one player manages a cheese draw and gets say two strips and two
: >vices, its all over for the good deck. Say THANK YOU swiss!
Lets take a better look at this. The odds of one of the vice deck
players winning each of his games would be .50. Since each would play
15 games (5 rounds of 3 games) the odds of winning all of them would
be .50^15 = .000030518, which is 1 out of 32768. (Actually a bit lower
since the ones against the good deck would almost certainly loose).
This makes the expected number that will have a perfect record
255/32768 = .00778.
The odds that even one will have a perfect record would be
1 - P(none of them). P(none of them) = (1 - .000030518)^255
= .999969482^255
= .9922481
1 - .9922481 = .007751899
So, there is a .775% chance that ANY of the vice deck players would have
a perfect record. It's much more difficult to evaluate the odds of the
player of the good deck winning...especially since we haven't specified
exactly what is in the good deck. However, if he won all his games,
he would be better than 99.22% likely to be the sole winner of the tournament.
: Thanks Craig, that was my point: the deck posted stinks. It has no
: right to win a single tourney game. Yet it can, because of the Vise.
It has no right to, and it is very unlikely to.
Tom Schipper